Cheap Mini Photo Portable Studio

I had several hours of free time during the Christmas holiday and I grabbed my camera and experimented on how to make a small item shot that looks decent, with a small/no budget. This exercise is pretty useful in real life if you are someone who put a lot of stuff on Ebay or online listing (ie. craigslist, etc).

The goal is to be portable, cheap, and quick - but also produces nicely lit object. I want a fairly soft light to create a nice even light. So, I am thinking either bounced light or diffused light. I went with diffused light, since it is easier to control the power that way.

So here are items that I used, which most if not all you can find in your house or buy cheaply:

• Parchment paper or wax paper. This is for the diffuser.
• Open cardboard box for creating a boxed controlled environment, cut out to attach the parchment paper (see setup shot for an example).
• A black or dark surface. Or glass/reflective surface will also work.
• A piece of blank white paper/carton to be a reflector.

I happen to have a black dining table that is a fairly smooth surface - so I used that as my surface. I put my box above the object, with another cut-out hole on the top of the box to let the light go through.

I setup my flash about 2-3 ft above the box facing down into the box. Attach the parchment paper on the cut-out hole to diffuse the light. Place the paper reflector inside the box on the other side of where the flash is.

Setup up the max sync speed on your camera and adjust your aperture to get a complete darkness exposure - this is for making sure that your only source light is your flash, not the dining room lamp, the sun, etc etc. Now turn on your flash and adjust the power of your flash to get a good exposure. Tweak the distance between your flash and the box as necessary, or add another layer of parchment paper if needed.

Here is my setup shot:

Learn How To Light via Strobist
Overpowering The Ambient

-- read more and comment ...

How to Do Sharpening in Photoshop

Why do we need "sharpening"? Well, you actually don't. But, given 2 identical photos, you will see that the one that is sharpened will be able to identify that it seems to be better focused and "sharp". This, a lot of times enhance the photographic viewing experience and create a more detailed perception of the picture.

Let's look at an example:
Original photo (cropped)


Here is the same image after sharpening (and color correction)
Pay attention to the pointy tip of the flower and the creases - and you can see a lot more if you view large (by clicking on the images).

The sharpening technique I used is called "edge sharpening". There are a lot of variety and settings that people use for this kind of sharpening (click here for Google search result for "edge sharpening"). There are other types of sharpening, lab-sharpening or just plainly using the unsharp mask. I am not going to discuss those methods in this post, but only going to focus on edge-sharpening.

Here is the step-by-step process that I usually take (you can make this into an action if you want) - I am using Photoshop CS and I am assuming that it will be similar in the newer versions:

1. Open you image, crop, adjust levels, curve, etc etc.
2. Create a new channel: Go to channel palette, click the new channel icon on the bottom. Put a name on your channel, call it "Sharp Channel" (or whatever you want). In PS CS, it will create a new channel and focus on this new channel (black screen/image). Still on the channel palette, click on the RGB channel to focus back on your image.
3. Select the whole image (Ctrl-A or do SELECT - ALL), and then copy the whole image (EDIT - COPY or EDIT - COPY MERGE)
4. Paste it on the new channel "Sharp Channel": select the "Sharp Channel" and then paste (EDIT - PASTE). It will display as black and white, which is OK.
5. Find edges: Make sure the "Sharp Channel" is focused/selected, and then click FILTER - STYLIZE - FIND EDGES
6. Eventually we are going to make this as a mask. So that means that the black part will affect your image and the white area won't. If you are pretty satisfied with the mask (it is hard to say what is a "good" one at this point - you will just have to experiment), you can skip step 7 and go to step 9 directly. I usually (9 out of 10) always do step 7 & 8 ...
7. Click IMAGE - ADJUSTMENTS - LEVELS. Try to adjust the levels by moving the triangular slide below the histogram. You basically want to make black to be very black and white to be white. Keep in mind that once we convert this channel into a mask, the black area are the one that will be sharpened. Play with this (unfortunately with trial and error) until you get the desired effect.
8. If there are details, lots of lines, etc, you may want to introduce a nice smoot transition from the sharpened area to the non-sharpened area. Use Gaussian Blur to do this: FILTER - BLUR - GAUSSIAN BLUR (enter between 1-5 px).
9. Now click SELECT - LOAD SELECTION. A dialog box will show up and make sure the selected channel is correct and "INVERT" checkbox is checked. Hit OK.
10. Click "Layers" (you were on "Channels"). The mask from our edge will be super-imposed on our image. You can hide this "blinking selection" by doing this: click VIEW - SHOW - and uncheck SHOW SELECTION.
11. Now we are ready for sharpening. It is usually helpful to view the image in large view/zoomed in. I would go for 100% zoom/view before start sharpening - so I can see/preview the affect of the sharpening. Click FILTER - SHARPEN - UNSHARP MASK. Try out combination of values in the USM window until you get the desired result. I recommend to keep the threshold to 0 and the radius to be less than 1.5.

There you go - good luck!
-- read more and comment ...

Investing on Cameras or Lenses?

Every year, there are several DSLRs coming out with new features and functionality that are eclipsing the past years DSLRs. If your have a DSLR and it was from several years ago, you may feel that it is quite obsolete compared to the new ones coming out this year. They are cheaper too!

To illustrate the point, let's say you have a entry level DSLR from Nikon, the Nikon D40 - which is release on December 2006. So a two and a half year old camera. It has big bright 2.5 inches screen, small, 3 focus points, 2 frames per seconds, built in flash, info view, scene modes, etc - for $549. It was the best selling DSLR at some point, the biggest bang for the buck.

So what would you do? Get a new DSLR every year (or every other year)? Or maybe lenses?

I recommend getting several flashes and some light stand and learn how to light via Strobist! Financially, it saves you LOTS of money (spend hundreds instead of thousands of dollars) AND exponentially improve your photographic skill - even with your current camera and lenses!

Now why is that? Or how does it work? Strobist provides tons of "how-to" etc (take lighting 101) and lighting resources (where to buy, reviews, etc). Secondly, most people usually want to get newer lenses because they need "faster" lenses. Faster lens means larger opening to capture more light. The standard kit lens is usually a "slow" lens, where it does not have the ability to capture light as fast as the faster lens. So, lighting/flashes compensate that by adding more light! So if you learn how to light - it will make your equipment to be more useful and all the more, you can do a LOT of things that really not possible without flashes.

Consider also this cost analysis:
Getting a new fast lens probably cost you $1,500. Getting an SB-800 and 2 more SB-600 (so 3 flashes total) will cost you $~700. Throw in a pair or light stand, 2 umbrellas, some gels - ~$200 - brings up the total to $900 - that using Nikon brand, and some nicer brands of stands and umbrellas, etc. So, learn how to light: WORTH IT!!

Now, if the choice is between camera and lenses, then I recommend in investing on lenses instead of camera. Several reasons:

• All technique aside, it is the lens that contributes more into the sharpness of your picture
• Beautiful bokeh (rendering of out of focus area) is caused by lens characteristics, not camera
• Lens holds its value really well, unlike camera
• Lens controls the aperture - which allow you to produce DoF, bokeh, and shutter speed - and of course the camera control the lens
• Less need for upgrade for lenses
• Studying the correct usage of lenses and its characteristics can improve your photographic skills better than camera

So got an older camera and itching for an upgrade? I say hold it. Check out your lens arsenal, and improve them first. In most cases for amateur or serious amateur, what your camera can do is more than enough for our needs. So as long as your camera is compatible with the lenses, stick with it and get a NICE lens instead. Does this mean you should throw away your kit lens? Nah, not really. You can keep it around for most occasions - parties, trips, vacations, etc - where you just want to enjoy the moment instead of being hassled by taking photos and their settings.

So, what do you currently have in your lens line up? I wrote a blog post about this in the past.

I am still using my Nikon D80 and a Nikon film camera - and I am not anticipating for a camera upgrade anytime soon. They are both still do their jobs very very well. But since then, I have upgraded my lens line up to be as such:

• AF-S 17-35 f/2.8
• AF-S 24-70 f/2.8
• AF-S 70-200 f/2.8

BUT, again - my best investment so far are:

• 2 Bogen Light Stands
• 2 SB 600s
• 1 SB 800
• 1 SB 80DX
• 2 White Umbrellas
• 1 Silver Umbrella
• 1 Multicolor reflector
• 1 Set of gels

With some of those lighting gear, I made this picture in this post.
-- read more and comment ...

New Nikkor!

By getting Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, I have completed my Nikkor lenses line up that covers 17-200mm for FX (full frame) and 10-200 for DX (crop format). So now, my lens line up is consisting of these lenses:

• Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f/2.8
• Nikkor AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G
• Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G

Nikon has come up with Nikkor AF-S 14-24 f/2.8G and some people say that this lens is suppose to replace AF-S 17-35. I am not sure whether that is true or not, but since I bought my 17-35 before 14-24 came out and it still performs its job exceptionally well - then I am keeping it. I also have not tried 14-24 in person other than reading some reviews and seeing sample photos. Most people agree that 14-24 is one of Nikon's best - to the point even Canon people are looking for converted to be able to use with Canon cameras.

This is not a full spec detail review, but rather an experience based narrative. So I am going to write about my experience in using 24-70 for the last 1 month or so (I had it since early November). For the last month, I can say I use this lens almost exclusively - not because all my other lenses are bad - but because I have done mostly indoor shooting/photography. I took a lot of pictures of my son, thanksgiving parties, etc - and I can say that 24-70 is perfect for indoors.

Previously I usually use my 50mm f/1.4 AF-D or AF-S 18-200. If I use my 50mm, I can set it to f/4 and set my camera to A mode and be happy. If I am using multiple flashes, I set my camera to M mode and adjust exposure accordingly. My gripe with the 50mm is that it is not a zoom and also the speed of focusing is rather slow - so as a result I often missed some critical shot of my son acting funny.

I was not expecting that this lens will be so much faster in focusing - but apparently it is faster enough that I have more keeper than before. This lens is also very very sharp - even with normal sharpening setting in my camera, it produce a very sharp image - I would say that it is comparable to 50mm prime.

Compared to 18-200 is like night and day. Although 18-200 has its place as a travel lens, compared to 24-70, its flaws and compromised got exposed. The 24-70 is sharp wide open and stay sharp throughout the aperture range. The 18-200 is soft wide open and sharpest at f/6.3 - but even its sharpest is not comparable to 24-70 wide open.

The zoom ring of the 24-70 is also consistent and balanced, making it easy to zoom and compose - where 18-200 has zoom creep and imbalance zoom ring stiffness.

All in all, I am extremely satisfied with this new lens, AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G - worth every penny that I put into it.

-- read more and comment ...

Backlighting & Overpowering Ambient

The shot above was taken on a sunny day light in my living room - how did I do it? Check out the rest of the post.

First of all - I backlit the leaf
What does that mean? It means I use a light source (a Nikon SB-600 flash) and that light source is located behind the object (the leaf). This means that the object is sandwiched between me (and the camera) and the light source. Your light source could be anything: the sun, desk lamp, flash light, TV, etc. I just happen to use my Nikon flash - plus it provides a strong enough light to overpower the ambient light - which brings us to the second point.

Secondly - overpowering the ambient
What is "ambient light"? It is the light that is around you in your current condition. So in this case, my ambient light was sun-light coming through from some windows in my house as well as the kitchen light from my left.

What does "over-powering" the ambient mean? It means that I use an external light source (my Nikon flash) to be the primary light source and rendering the ambient light to be secondary light source or to be non-existent. In this case - I want the light coming out of my flash to be the ONLY light captured by my camera in lighting the leaf and I want the background to be dark (black or close to it). So my flash needs to be my primary light source and I need to render the ambient light into close to non-existent in the final picture - thus "overpowering the ambient".

OK then - how do you overpower the ambient? It is actually quite simple: I close down the exposure enough so that when I take a picture without flash it becomes dark/black. There are a lot of combinations you can use to accomplish this among shutter speed, aperture, and ISO setting. I picked ISO 100, 1/320 and f/11. I want to close down the aperture enough to capture the detail of the leaf and since I am handholding a 200mm lens, I want high enough shutter speed (more than 1/200s) . So that means low ISO, high speed, and closed down aperture - hence I selection.

After that, I position my flash behind the leaf, put it into High-FP mode (which enable the flash to work with shutter speed higher than normal sync-speed) and put it in 1/4 power and do a test fire. Adjust the position of the flash and adjust power to 1/2 and VOILA!

I did some post-processing with the image produced: cropping (I actually captured the whole leaf), sharpening (to strengthen the detail), and manipulate the color of the leaf a little bit (it was originally yellow/orange).

I use Nikon D80 camera, Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens, and SB-600 flash.
-- read more and comment ...

Photography as a Hobby

I am a serious hobbyist in photography. From my days in high school with film, until now in the digital era - photography has been a nagging interest in my life. For a certain period of time, it's virtually missing in my life - because of a simple reason: my camera was stolen. Since that point, for about 4 years, I did not own a camera - until my dad bought my wife and I a Nikon D70.

Holding the camera and pressing the shutter button triggered the journalistic memory from my high school and early college days. My film camera was a Nikon and the D70 that we had still use the same lens mount (it is called F-mount for Nikon). When I got a chance, I took all my old lenses and tried it and they worked!

Nikon vs. Canon
I am a little bit biased to Nikon because I owned Nikon equipments, including some of my old gears from the film days. Ultimately, they are a matter of preferences and your legacy equipments. So when you are already invested in Canon gears, it makes sense to continue on that route, same thing if you are in Nikon. If you are already invested in a brand, it is quite costly to switch - and this alone (depending on your seriousness level in photography) will be a strong cause to NOT switch brand.

I like Nikon bodies, their ergonomics, single functioning dedicated buttons, sub-command dials, shutter placement, etc. On the other hand, Canon is a step ahead in lenses variety. For 70-200mm alone, Canon provides 4 varieties (70-200 f/2.8 L USM IS and non-IS, 70-200 f/4 L USM IS and non-IS) with their price differences while Nikon only provides 1 model (70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR). Nikon on the other hand is way ahead on lighting/flash technology.

Each brand also has bodies that range from early beginner up to the pro model (from $450 to $8K). So take your pick and stick with it. People ask me all the time about this and usually my answer is for them to try them out and pick for themselves. One benefit if you going with Nikon if you are my closer friends is that you can borrow my lenses and other Nikon equipment.

Crop Sensor
Most digital SLR now have crop sensor. What that means is that the sensor area is smaller then the area of a regular 35mm film. If the sensor area is the same as 35mm film, we call it "full frame" sensor - this usually only applied in the highest model line (Nikon D3, Canon 1Ds, etc) or close to highest (Nikon D700, Canon 5D). The smaller sensor area means that there is a crop factor in comparison to the 35mm area. For Nikon, the crop factor is 1.5 and for Canon is 1.3 or 1.6 (depending on the model). Crop factor 1.5 means that the digital sensor is 1.5 times smaller in area compared to 35mm film.

There are several implications to this factor:

• Wide is no longer wide. Since there is a crop, what used to be wide angle shot become not so wide anymore. Camera with crop sensor requires a WIDER lens to achive 35mm film/full-frame sensor width. So if you use a 20mm lens in a camera body with crop sensor, it will produce the similar result as if you are using a 35mm lens on a full-frame camera. 35mm = 1.5 * 20mm. To accommodate the need for wide angle shot, lens manufacturer create lenses especially for crop sensor that is super wide - but cannot be used in full-frame camera (or it will produce a fall-off or vignette).


• On the other hand, a 200mm tele lens becomes a 300mm tele lens in a crop sensor camera! So in a way, crop sensor body provides more reach.

Lens line up
So what is a good lens line up that spans from wide angle to tele for hobbyist? There are virtually endless possibilities, but I will try to provide several options based on budget. A good line up usually spans from ultra-wide (20mm or wider) to tele (200mm). In daily usage, it is rare you will need beyond this range.

OK, here we go - I am going with Nikon in most cases btw, if you want Canon, there are equivalent lenses - Google it!

1. Going SUPER EASY - crop factor (DX) - 1 lens fits all
• Nikkor AF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR - $650
2. Going SUPER CHEAP (< $350) - crop factor (DX) - 2 lenses
• Nikkor AF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 DX - $110 ($170 if get the VR)
• Nikkor AF-S 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 DX - $170 ($220 if VR)
3. Going CHEAP (< $500) - crop factor (DX) - 2 lenses
• Nikkor AF-S 18-70 f/3.5-5.6 DX - $250 (NO VR)
• Nikkor AF-S 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 DX - $170 ($220 if VR)
4. Going COMPROMISED (< $750) - crop factor (DX) - 2 lenses
• Nikkor AF-S 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DX VR - $580
• Nikkor AF-S 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 DX VR - $220
5. Going QUALITY (~ $1,000) - crop factor (DX) - 2 lenses
• Nikkor AF-S 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DX VR - $560
• Nikkor AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR - $460
6. Going PRO ($$$) - DX or FX - 3 lenses
• Nikkor AF-S 14-24 f/2.8 - $1,600
• Nikkor AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 - $1,600
• Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR - $1,600

Obviously, this list is not exhaustive. There are more possibilities out there. Configure your own from this list!

If you are into MACRO, you want to get a MACRO lens, OR ... a reversing ring, so that you can use your PRIME wide angle or normal lens in reverse to get a magnification close to a MACRO lens (or maybe more - depending on how you configure it).

Currently, have quite a line up:

• Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 DX - since I am using a crop factor camera, this is my ultra wide angle lens (equiv to 15-35 in full frame or 35mm format)
• Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f/2.8
• AF-D 50mm f/1.4
• AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR
• AF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR - my walkabout and daily lens

In this line up, I am still missing the normal zoom range - so I probably going to get AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 in the near future (or when I can finance it).

There you go! Photography hobby is not cheap - so buy only what is necessary and flee from trying acquiring the latest greatest every time, because it is a never-ending buying process if you allow it to be so. Photography can be very satisfying and if you are really good, you can make money of it too! Here are some of my photos:

• Flickr
• Picasa

-- read more and comment ...